By The Right Scoop


I’d love to know what you guys think of this video where Santorum talks about his vote for No Child Left Behind. I appreciate Santorum’s candor on this, but felt that he needed to make a stronger, less self-deprecating argument. I was hoping for strength and his answer was a bit weak for my expectations:

(via BBTV)

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • teri_b

    This is why I never believed Santorum would not have voted for TARP. He has always been a team player, and there was a lot of pressure to vote for it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Sheamus-Reale/1217208778 Aaron Sheamus Reale

      He was not always a team player don’t be silly

      • http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

        Really? explain Specter

        • orthodoxyordeath

          He explained Specter quite well in the debate.

          • http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

            Yes he did….He was again being a team player. That is what Rick Santorum does. He follows the team . Thats not a bad thing to some extent but it isnt a leader.

            • orthodoxyordeath

              None of the other candidates strike me as a “leader,” and Santorum’s never had a “power” position, so I think the concept that he’ll be a leader isn’t farfetched.

              • http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

                Newt Gingrich lead the congress and Romney Lead a state. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are the two who have lead nothing. It might be ugly but it is the truth.

  • SovereignMary

    RON PAUL DID A GREAT JOB OF REMINDING ALL HIS REPUBLICAN OPPONENTS WHEN HE TOLD THEM THAT THEY TAKE AN OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION – “WHICH IS THE LAW” — AND NOT TO A POLITICAL PARTY!
    It seems as if Rick Santorum forgot about that covenant when he freely admitted that he will compromise his beliefs and principles and “take one for the team”, when it comes to politics and party.

    • http://twitter.com/shelly99032 Shelly Sands

      Oh get over it. Paul is a Romney suckbutt. Talk about losing principals.

      • drphibes

        They’re losing Principals? I thought it was just the children left behind. This is serious!

        (I think you meant principles. Remember, “The Principal is my PAL.”)

        • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

          I usually do not like grammar police, but you, sir, crack me up!

        • http://twitter.com/shelly99032 Shelly Sands

          LOL Yep you’re right. I fixed it. Excuse the brain fart.

        • http://twitter.com/shelly99032 Shelly Sands

          The principAL’s have stunk to though . They should be lost.

      • BSScoop

        Exactly. Very telling, Rick Santorum. Very telling.

        I’m not a libertarian but dammit, if this is the excuse for a conservative to give then it sure makes it hard to be a conservative. I like that RS admitted his mistake but we are so far down the socialist road that it requires a near perfect candidate to prevent the loss of our republic.

        I’ve never been a PaulBot. His foreign policy is wacky and dangerous. But, he’s the only one who truly adheres to the Constitution, warts and all. Libertarians emphasize social issues just as much as SoCons do, though they whine that people like RS talk too much about it. Libertarians also fail to understand that the liberty they love so much completely depends on a culture that is voluntarily, dominantly Christian. Only a Christian people understand freedJesus said, “The truth will set you free.”

        I might only be able to vote for Ron Paul. He’s the only one I trust to radically strip our government of the power they’ve abused for so, so long.

        BS
        Don’t Tread On Me

        • JimmyBleep

          I agree with most of your points. I’m not a libertarian and was no fan of Paul 4 years ago. I do not agree with all of his foreign policy (his Achilles heel for sure) but some if it isn’t bad. I have to keep my integrity in life. The Republicans have pushed me towards these libertarians by their own actions. I think four years of Ron Paul is best way to slam on the breaks of this runaway train. He’s no great savior, but he could be a cog to turning this ocean-liner away from the inevitable iceberg.

          The only part of your post I take issue with is the reliance on Christianity for freedom. I understand what our country was founded on, but would trace a lot of lines to ancient Greece (predating Jesus) for our democratic ideals. I suppose I’m a freedom romantic like George W because I believe it is something all people crave and may attain regardless of religion.

          • BSScoop

            Point taken but consider this…

            “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
            – George Washington

            “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          Well said. I might disagree on the issue of foreign policy, with the fact that the profound truth being that the founders fully tried to stay out of foreign wars as much as humanly possible. That said, I have no problem protecting our interests, as long as those interests can’t be construed in our own nation, especially considering our foreign policy consists of helping the enemy as well as our friends. It might not be what people want to hear, but Ron Paul has stated it properly, we need to de-fund all of the countries we fund, get out of the U.N and NATO, and re-evaluate what exactly we as a nation are doing to others as well as ourselves. Call it what you want(here come the anti-semtic rants), but if you are funding the enemy 20 times over the friend, who the heck are we helping? Everyone chants we should invade Iran because they might have the bomb, but how about asking this, what if they already have it? Talk is cheap, no matter who it is from, but, Ron has constantly stood with the Constitution, and when it comes to our sovereignty are we better or worse with a candidate who states the famous, “I voted for it before I was against it.” routine? Sadly, not ONE of the candidates that RS has supported(Newt, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum) is one that can be trusted. No one should think that cause they talk the talk NOW, means they will walk the walk later. You ALWAYS have to look at their past to know what they will do in the future. There are RARE instances that this doesn’t hold true, one being Ronald Reagan. That man was a liberal before becoming the conservative we use as a litmus test on how conservative a candidate is. Sadly, this is not what I see from the front runners. Unless they can show it, not speak it, I think I will be holding my nose, and my wallet, as I vote this November. I don’t see many backing up Ron Paul on domestic issues(which should be what we are voting for, seeing as how bad things are here) as a standard barer on what needs to be done to get Leviathan(aka Federal Gubment) back in check.

    • c4pfan

      Then went out to say that he wouldn’t have supported the Constitution that was a big COMPROMISE!

    • Nukeman60

      I can’t believe that Paul slams all the Congress as much as he does. Doesn’t anybody that buys that line realize Paul was in there longer than most. If he claims he wasn’t part of it, then he was just taking up space. Either way, he’s slamming himself.

      • FreeManWalking

        HE is the biggest hypocrite loading up a bill with PORK or EARMARKS then voting against it.

        I don’t see how he can even face anyone of the other candidates, that is even lower than RINOmney.

        • v1ctorsag3

          Would you rather the Executive Branch say where the money from all bills goes rather than your House Representatives?

          • Nukeman60

            The hypocracy is loading up earmarks in bills that he knows are going to pass and then voting against the bill to be able to say down the road (ie, election time) that he voted against it. He wanted things both ways and usually got it. Then he claims all earmarks are bad. As FMW said, pure hypocrite.

            • v1ctorsag3

              So, had no earmarks been specified on a bill, all funding on said bill (passed by Congress) would have been at the discretion of the Executive Branch. And you would have no problem with that, what so ever?

              • Nukeman60

                I’m not against earmarks. It’s the hypocracy I’m against. You seem to keep missing something here. Have you checked all your batteries?

          • FreeManWalking

            No actually I have less of a problem with earmarks than I do with loading them up in a bill. I would rather see each type (Bridge, Road etc) be funded in a package not lumped in with other legislation.

            The point I was making is what Ron Paul does is the epitome of hypocrisy.

            His fans seem to overlook and try to reason it out constitutionally.

        • OldDan

          What exactly is an earmark?

          • Nukeman60

            An earmark is just a certain amount of expenditure tagged for a particular project in a particular district. Much like you ‘earmark’ a page of a book you are reading, you ‘earmark’ money to go to your own pet projects.

            • OldDan

              What happens to the money that is not earmarked?

              • Nukeman60

                It goes to whatever dept or state or whatever that bill was designated for, just not specifically to any particular pet project. For example, if a bill gives a state x amount of money for roads, but earmarks y amount of that to a particular road or stretch of road.

                • OldDan

                  Wrong. All budgeted money not earmarked is turned over the the executive branch (e.g., Obama) to spend as it sees fit.

                  Note that if Paul or the others (including Santorum) had never earmarked, the budgets would not have been reduced a single dime. Once the budget is set by the House leadership, it is voted up or down. Then, and only then, is the money targeted: some to defense, some to education, etc.. The money left over is either earmarked by congressmen or it is turned over the the executive branch.

                  There are some good articles that explain how un-earmarked money is spent by the executive branch–possibly to reward friends, and punish enemies. This link on Wikipedia explains a lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics). This is an excerpt:

                  “Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly point out that directing money to particular purposes is a core constitutional function of Congress. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch; there is no guarantee that the allocation made by executive agencies will be superior to Congress’s. Presidents and executive officials can use the allocation of spending to reward friends and punish enemies.”

                  BTW, a good rule of thumb is this: if John McCain is against it, it is probably good. John McCain has made a career demagoging against earmarks.

                • Nukeman60

                  I don’t know where you thought I was against earmarks. What I stated in another post was I was against the hypocracy. So, thanks for the supposed lesson anyway.

                  Once the budget is set by the House leadership, it is voted up or down. Then, and only then, is the money targeted: some to defense, some to education, etc.. The money left over is either earmarked by congressmen or it is turned over the the executive branch.‘ – Olddan

                  Yes, the money left over, that hasn’t been allocated to defense, education, etc., is sent to the exec branch. You didn’t specify that. Don’t try to imply that all money is either earmarked or given to the pres.

                • OldDan

                  My posts to you were not about whether or not you are against earmarks. It was this statement about Paul:

                  “The hypocracy is loading up earmarks in bills that he knows are going to pass and then voting against the bill to be able to say down the road (ie, election time) that he voted against it. He wanted things both ways and usually got it. Then he claims all earmarks are bad.

                  That is complete and total nonsense. First, Paul votes against every budget for one reason: every budget constitutes unconstitutional spending. Second, he believes all budgeted money should be earmarked for transparency. I have never heard him claim earmarks are bad. Always to the contrary.

                  BTW, my candidate, Newt, believes that earmarking is not all bad. On this issue, however, he would do well to take Paul’s position that all money should be earmarked to ensure we, the taxpayers, can see how our money is spent.

                • Nukeman60

                  I have never heard him claim earmarks are bad‘ – olddan

                  You must not have listened to the debate, then, because in the debate he said, ‘All earmarks are bad’ to Santorum.

                  My choice is Newt as well. Transparency is a wonderful thing. If all things were earmarked (not hidden, like pork), perhaps we would spend less.

                • OldDan

                  You must not have listened to the debate, because Ron Paul essentially praised earmarking during the debate. He stated that people don’t understand earmarking because “earmarking is designating how the money is spent . . . if congress doesn’t say the way the money is to be spent it goes to the executive branch, and that’s the bad part . . . you don’t want to give more power to the executive branch”.

                  I recommend you listen more carefully.

                • Nukeman60

                  Yeah, I stand corrected. he said ‘all bailouts are bad’. My mistake. It’s late.

                  However, he does pack bills with earmarks and then votes against those bills, allowing others to pass his earmarked bill. That’s on record. Here’s an example:

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-on-earmarks-and-corporate-welfare-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/28/gIQAWjEaOP_blog.html

                • OldDan

                  Now you are using the Washington Post as a reference? Lord help us…

                • http://profiles.google.com/kaiserpha Patrick Allen

                  Insulting the Washington Post is not an argument. I don’t think you intend it to be, but it’s not sporting.

                • OldDan

                  Politics is not a sport, and the Washington Post is the insult. If and when the WP vets Obama I will heap praises on it. But I am not getting my hopes up.

                • OldDan

                  BTW, I checked out the point made in the WP article about Paul “pressed the U.S. energy secretary in 2008 to approve a federal loan guarantee to expand a nuclear facility in Texas.” Paul doesn’t deny it. A spokesman stated Paul voted against the loan program when it was created under George W. Bush, and again when the stimulus expanded it, but said that Paul would lobby for the funds so long as they exist.

                  That is consistent with Paul’s voting record. He has always tried to return as much of the taxpayer’s money to his state as possible, while at the same time trying to reduce federal expenditures so the taxpayers would not be obligated for so much.

                  In other words, the WP article was just another smear . . .

      • v1ctorsag3

        He’s slamming the groupthink of Congress (Congress as an entity, if you will). Not specific people. If you look at his record, the vast majority of times, his was one of the few votes placed that actually reflected the limitations specified by he Constitution.

        If defending the limitations of the Constitution is “just taking up space” then anyone who believes in limited government is against everything you believe in and should be considered an enemy of the state.

        • Nukeman60

          Yeah, he has a long and distinguished history of putting forth bills in the Congress. Mostly, plugging them with earmarks and then voting no to them for cover. Not my cup of tea, thank you.

          Or perhaps you can enlighten me on the long list of bills that he’s gotten through the Congress. I know Obama voted ‘present’ for a lot of them in the Senate.

          • v1ctorsag3

            Ah, vote for the ‘Big Spender’. I know and have come to accept those kinds of people. Most are decent, but every so often…

            But, I digress… There is a difference between voting ‘present’ and actually protecting the Constitution. Once you get a taste of the real world, you may experience that.

            • Nukeman60

              Yep, beautiful. You think I’m saying Obama and Paul are the same. Typical twist. Come back with all the bills Paul put forth in the years he’s been there. That’s all.

              • v1ctorsag3

                You’re twisting your own words. You’re the person who brought Obama into the conversation.

                Voting for a candidate for their ability to frivolously pass laws is one way to go. I prefer voting on substance of character and their willingness to defend the Constitution.

                A quick search brought up this:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

                • Nukeman60

                  I already have his entire list of voting record in front of me. The comment was just an enjoyable way to get you to do the exercise. Too bad it was just a quick search, though. Thanks for playing.

          • OldDan

            Do you hate Ron Paul so much that you resort to lying about his motives for earmarking? Shame…

            • Nukeman60

              You mean he doesn’t earmark bills and then vote against them. Dang, I didn’t realize that.

              • OldDan

                You didn’t say it that way. What you did was impugn his character. For example, you said,

                “Yeah, he has a long and distinguished history of putting forth bills in the Congress. Mostly, plugging them with earmarks and then voting no to them for cover.”

                That is a smear. No other way to describe it. Paul never voted against bills “for cover”. Not once. He always votes against bills that contain unconstitutional expenditures. You also wrote,

                “The hypocracy is loading up earmarks in bills that he knows are going to pass and then voting against the bill to be able to say down the road (ie, election time) that he voted against it. He wanted things both ways and usually got it. Then he claims all earmarks are bad. As FMW said, pure hypocrite.”

                That is another smear. No other way to describe it. Paul always votes against budgets with unconstitutional spending, and he always tries to earmark as much as he can. There is never any intention that he wanted it “both ways”.

                Now I notice in your most recent reply to another comment of mine, that you use the same old, tired argument in an attempt to smear him. You lose all credibility when you resort to such tactics.

                I have a suggestion: stick to arguing against his foreign policy. On economic issues you will lose every time.

          • JimmyBleep

            Here is a good list of bills he has sponsored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

      • JimmyBleep

        Paul is judged by his voting record, not the voting record of Congress.

    • keyesforpres
      • JimmyBleep

        That article is garbage. I’ve seen about 13 or 14 debates and Paul has attacked Romney many many times. So Rand was asked about being considered for veep, what does that prove? I’m sure he would give the same answer about any contender asking him to be veep. The Caller is making a significant jump here. This shoddy reporting is what grinds my gears with what passes for news these days. I remember when TPaw dropped out and endorsed Romney, everyone reported it was for veep. Same with Chris Christie and others. This is sensational opportunistic journalism used to sell papers for that day. They look for things that are not there. Everyone can’t be his VP choice.

    • keyesforpres

      Oh, and don’t forget Paul double dipping on his travel expenses.

    • xjesterx

      It really makes no sense if Paul believes what he says, that he calls Santorum “fake”, but not Romney. He didn’t say ONE BAD THING about Romney, nor has he run one ad criticizing Romney, the LEAST conservative in the field.

      • OldDan

        I have to agree with Ron Paul that “Trick” Santorum is a fake. Trick was my senator in PA, and he is as phony as they come. It is hard to pinpoint why he became such a shady character. Maybe he was bullied too much in school.

        • xjesterx

          >>I have to agree with Ron Paul that “Trick” Santorum is a fake. Trick was my >>senator in PA, and he is as phony as they come. It is hard to pinpoint why he >>became such a shady character. Maybe he was bullied too much in school.

          Seeing as how he lost the 2006 election, I would say he’s anything BUT fake. Otherwise he would have adopted every position to get back into office. Instead, he fought hard, maintaining his support for the war for example, and lost due to NOT being fake.

          • OldDan

            You obviously don’t know very much about Santorum. He loves big-government (provided it is his form of big government). He is also very arrogant. If his arrogant explanation tonight of why he voted to fund Planned Parenthood didn’t convince you, check out the arrogance he displayed in the Pittsburgh stadium issue:

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/8/santorum-backed-pittsburgh-stadium-tax-hike/?page=all#pagebreak

            Read it carefully and you will note that the counties voted overwhelmingly against the stadiums. But Santorum knew better than the voters and went over their heads.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Sheamus-Reale/1217208778 Aaron Sheamus Reale

      He admitted he DID and made a mistake doing so, and he will not do it again…learn to listen Paulbot!

    • kong1967

      I agree. Ron Paul impresses me on MANY things, but his foreign policy stinks. Santorum gets an “F” with that comment.

  • Steven

    Santorum blew it tonight. With that said, he is still better than Romney, but it seems that if he gets swept by Romney next week, he may have to drop out. This was his chance to show strength and he failed to stand out and have his moment. He was flustered and unremarkable. It’s a shame because he had so much momentum. I still would support him in MI and AZ if I had a vote there, but he has to retool and get better than what he was tonight if he thinks he has the mojo to take on the Obama machine.

    • jollyjellybean

      I don’t agree, but perhaps you are right. Maybe America has fallen completely to the “cagefighter” mentality. I really hope not.

    • c4pfan

      I don’t agree at all. He was very strong in going right back at Romney.

    • Sober_Thinking

      I have to reluctantly agree with you.

      It was his 1st time in the lead and he did stumble. He did okay… but he needs to do better in the future, if he has another chance.

      Check out the other points I made in a post to this video.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

        Do you think Rick’s performance will hurt him in the AZ and MI polls? Would suck if it did.

        • Sober_Thinking

          Rick hasn’t been campaigning in Arizona so I expect Romney to win. Funny thing is, Santorum is (or was) closing the gap with Mittens on a daily basis… so we shall see.

          In Michigan, the polls generally show Rick in the lead (but they’re all over the board). I would LOVE it if he won there. We’ll see again… this debate performance may have hurt him a little. But Rick is closer to the heart of Michigan folks than Romney is. If Santorum places 2nd, it still meets his expectations.

          I’d like to see Newt start a come back also.

    • JimmyBleep

      Why drop out a week before Super Tuesday?

  • http://twitter.com/shelly99032 Shelly Sands

    It did start out weak but ended fairly strong. All in all I agree it could have been much better.

    • Sober_Thinking

      Yep. He still has my vote… but this was a lost opportunity. I don’t think he expected to be double-teamed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

        If he frequented TRS, he would not have been surprised. Posts and comments for the past week talked about the upcoming double-team several times. Rick needs some campaign staff to do nothing but read TRS posts and comments and get that info back to Rick.

  • c4pfan

    I don’t think he should have said ‘taking it for the team’, but even I was fooled into supportig No Child Left Behind too. Supporting Bush on a lot of things was a mistake.

    • keyesforpres

      Agreed. I initially thought it was a good idea, but now know it needs to be repealed. Sometimes a person votes on a bill that seems like a good idea at the time, but as it gets implemented and things happen that make you realize it was a mistake. Nothing wrong with admitting you made a mistake.

      • JimmyBleep

        Good call. If he explained it like that versus the “I was just following orders” excuse, it wouldn’t have been a gaffe at all.

    • Gtrjag

      Bush did a lot of damage to the Party. It’s critically important that we don’t allow another moderate Republican to become President.

      • JimmyBleep

        Every president in history makes mistakes. There is no way around it. Bush did more good than bad. His biggest failures in my mind were the lack of border control after 9/11, the $15B of AIDS relief to Africa, and the “too big to fail” bailout.

      • JimmyBleep

        Every president in history makes mistakes. There is no way around it. Bush did more good than bad. His biggest failures in my mind were the lack of border control after 9/11, the $15B of AIDS relief to Africa, and the “too big to fail” bailout.

  • jollyjellybean

    I think we all woke up to alot of things around the same time. Sometimes revelations are like that……

  • c4pfan

    Don’t lie about how we even were supporting No Child Left Behind and basically everything Bush said to do. I know I did.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      exactly did Romney ever call out Bush? NOPE!

  • jollyjellybean

    I think we all woke up to alot of things around the same time. Sometimes revelations are like that……I still pick Rick.

  • PVG

    The answer started out on the weak side but he gained cred as he talked about home schooling and getting the fed/states out of education. Home schooling was the key.

    • Gtrjag

      He was being honest. I really don’t know what else he should have said.

  • Sober_Thinking

    He got slammed by Romney and his lackey so he was on the ropes for most of the night. In fact, it was funny how Ron Paul went after him on this very same subject right after he admitted he messed up.

    1) Santorum is the leader (for now anyway) and can expect to be attacked by Romney and Paul from here on out. He’s new to the top spot.

    2) Rick has made some bad calls in the past and deserves a little heat. This is the first time he’s really taken his lumps on these topics.

    3) Santorum owned up to his mistake(s) and that’s rare in the political arena.

    4) He could have been stronger overall and I wish he had been more resolute and effective at answering these assaults. But he speaks from his heart and is unscripted – part of his appeal… what you see is what you get.

    5) CNN moderated this in a way that allowed Romney (Ron Paul was just a bonus for them) to tee up Rick for the kill.

    I don’t think Santorum expected the relentless double-team of Paul and Romney. I think he’ll be more prepared next time. This was his first time as the Belle of the Ball. it takes some time to be able to dance.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      as usual, well said Sober_ I couldn’t agree with you more, and I only saw about the last 45 minutes of the debate and could see the mittens/paul team working. I like the way you said it in your last part.

      • Sober_Thinking

        :)

    • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

      I already made this point, but if Rick had someone on his campaign staff read TRS last week, he would not have been surprised by the double-team. Heck, all he had to do was read Drudge headlines and he should have known what was about to go down.

      • Sober_Thinking

        Good point. :)

  • http://twitter.com/catholiclawyer Rogelio H.

    The “problem” with the response Santorum gave is that he comes off as someone who didn’t want to rock the boat and voted primarily out of party loyalty. If he thought No Child Left Behind was wrong at the time it was proposed, he should have either fought for adjustments or outright voted against it.

    From a PR/campaign standpoint, Santorum might have been better served to say he thought and was convinced No Child Left Behind was a good idea, but in hindsight was wrong and committed to repealing it if elected president.

    • Gtrjag

      He could have said that, but it would have been disingenuous.

  • http://twitter.com/shelly99032 Shelly Sands

    I just have this sick feeling we’re gonna get stuck with the white b.o. :(

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

      No, if Luke Skywalker fails, there’s always the more seasoned Newtie Won-Gingrich.

  • stage9

    Name a single politician in Washington, or for that matter ANYWHERE in the country, who has not voted for SOMETHING they might have not supported 100%. Well, anyone but Paul of course who apparently votes for nothing and pretty much sleeps at his desk all day.

    No Child Left Behind, although a horrible idea, is NOT on par with RomneyCare. Our nation isn’t hinging on the brink because of NCLB. It’s hinging on the brink IN PART because a NE liberal devised an idiotic mandate on healthcare that his liberal friends took and ran with.

    And of course, to be fair to Obama and his deteriorative legacy NCLB is not the issue here. And neither are earmarks necessarily.

    It was the subprime housing crisis that started this mess and the Democrats hold the bag on that one alone.

    • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

      Yes! Yes! Yes!

    • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

      “Well, anyone but Paul of course who apparently votes for nothing and pretty much sleeps at his desk all day.”

      LMAO!

      Correction: You forgot to mention that Ron Paul made sure he put earmarks into the bills he voted against but knew were going to pass anyway, so he could get money back to his cronies while saving face with his libertarian buddies bashing those same bills. At least when Rick supported an earmark, he backed it up by voting for the bill, not cowering like a wuss. I liked when Rick Perry brought this up during one of his last debates performances.

  • http://twitter.com/shelly99032 Shelly Sands

    Scoop will you be posting the whole debate? I missed the whole thing dagnabbit!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

    Santorum should apologize for the earmark thing as well, instead of getting caught up in the pissing matches. At least after that they could move on to something productive.

  • c4pfan

    When Newt was in the LEAD he sucked even worse when attacked.

    • Cindy09

      Excellent reminder!!! On one occasion, Santorum even helped him out by diverting the focus! Tonight both Romney and Paul ganged up on Santorum. I was wishing that Gingrich would get them to refocus. At this stage,”helping” Santorum is somehow “helping” himself. To his credit, he kinda did when he answered John King’s question on the birth control by deflecting the issue to Obama’s support of Partial Birth Abortion.

  • BMinPA

    It is not that Sanrotum could not debate well tonight. What we learned about him tonight was very damaging to him. Debating skill is not going to help. I don’t see him win either MI or AZ now.

    • keyesforpres

      Compared to what? Sorry, but Romneycare is far worse than anything Santorum did.

      • xjesterx

        Bingo. And why no one brought up how this late in the game Romney all of a sudden has a tax cut. Hmmm…almost like he’s worried he might lose!

  • xjesterx

    “Taking one for the team” was not a good way to answer the attack. Saying the same thing, I think Rush said this, was that the President of your party called, and you were doing your best to support him. Getting behind what you thought was testing for graduation sounded like an okay idea, but on hindsight, it didn’t work out. He also could have brought up that Romney says “there are things I would now change” about Romneycare.

    He also got into the weeds too often, losing even the best supporter in details.

    But all that said, my end impression was despite the tag team attack of Romney/Paul, at the end of the night it was a tie. Rick got some good comebacks, refocusing the debate, despite being the target. I also think Romney had a large audience presence- hence the booing.

    One also key point- Rick smiled a lot, even when attacked. Romney couldn’t say “nothing to get angry about.” Rick looked like a happy warrior.

    He gave one bad answer that real debate watchers focus on, but all in all no one “won” the debate. I think everything stays the same.

    My take is that there is a good chance Rick wins Michigan and Oklahoma, and makes a good showing in Arizona, where he is barely campaigning.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jaspersilvis Jasper Silvis

      I noticed his smiling as well. That is a lot better than the scowl he displayed in the early debates. He is more confident after lots of recent speeches and interviews that he knocked out of the park.

  • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

    Typical Santorum response and act. The no child left behind, actually all children left behind program, as I encountered, teaching in university, is national shame. Then, to try to justify, by saying he was just a team player, is inexcusable. This is not a man I want for the leader of the free world. I let Iran kill all the jews, because the UN team told me too. Get real, Mark, if you cannot see who he is, then, at least, give better men a fair shake. At least Newt, has a real good plan.

    • xjesterx

      As someone else said, voting for one program that the majority of Republicans supported, is NOTHING compared to Romneycare, and NOTHING compared to all of a sudden coming out with a tax program only when the race looks like you might lose your “home” state.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1388784674 Joel Cruz

    As a Santorum supporter, I was quite disappointed in the answer though I do think it was a truthful one. Paul a bit later on nailed him on it saying that this was part of the problem in Washington. Not a good moment for Rick.

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

    Good for Rick for advocating home schooling and local control of education, but that does little or nothing to distinguish him from the others.

    “Team sport”? Yikes. It’s not entirely untrue, but that was the wrong answer. Behaving like a team instead of like principled individuals has contributed to leading the GOP away from conservatism.

    • xjesterx

      Yes, the answer sucked. I mean, we all know that is the ONLY way Obamacare will get repealed. If the Repubs have a 51/49 majority, there will have to be a lot of wheeling and dealing to get it done. This is what Rick was referring to, and Paul can make jokes all he wants ending his sentences with “..aaaaannnddd noooo morrrrreeee waaaarrrrsssss”, but he would have to do the same to repeal Obamacare.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim
  • Mary Beth House

    Here’s what I heard. I’m consistently conservative unless I’m asked by the party to go against my principles.

    I’ll stand up for what I believe in unless it’s politically uncomfortable for me to do so.

    I’ll fight for conservative principles unless I’m called to go along to get along.

    • BMinPA

      And with this mindset who is to say how he would have voted on TARP and the bailouts if he was actually still in the Senate. They were both Bush’s ideas. But worse is voting to fund PP. I did not know that? Did anybody?

      • Mary Beth House

        He keeps going after Newt on TARP … but in fact Newt vehemently was opposed to it and only in the end said he’d very reluctantly vote for it to stave off a crisis and only because the GOP made it not as awful as it originally was proposed to be.

        And Santorum’s position back then was…what exactly?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Sheamus-Reale/1217208778 Aaron Sheamus Reale

    I thought it was a good answer, he shows he is humble and understands when he makes a mistake, and he learns from it. Unlike Ron Paul who is so arrogant that he can’t think of even ONE thing he has ever shouldn’t have voted for and he can’t even think of ONE think about his life he would change!

    Paul also can’t take Santorum’s admission of a mistake, and that he has learned from it, he instead has to accuse Santorum of changing his mind because he is running for office…Santorum is a great man, Ron Paul is a jerk.

  • c4pfan

    Ron Paul hasn’t done anything in 20 years. He hasn’t won anything either, so I don’t get the shills for Ron Paul saying anything.

    • xjesterx

      In 1988, Paul left the Republican party, trashed Reagan, and ran for President on the libertarian ticket. Now somehow people think he is the “definer” of what is conservative. Most of his supporters were 2 years old when he did all this.

      • http://www.davemacleod.net/ dmacleo

        some still are. or at least act it.

  • c4pfan

    Scoop, I hope you also put up Santorum’s answers about Syria/Iran.

  • marketcomp

    Rick is a team player and during that time he was supporting the President which is what happens when you are in the same party. Unfortunately, it is what the Democrats did for Obama with Obamacare but No Child Left Behind was nothing like Obamacare. The same thing happens in business when yu are a junior worker and as the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. I got your back Rick. Your compass is going the Right way!

    • c4pfan

      It’s still so hard with Bush for me. He’s been nowhere still when it comes to Conservative causes, but he’s still fantastic with supporting our troops.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim

        The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of…. that one.
        I am all for strong defense but why do we put more effort in guarding borders all over the world rather than our own.

        • alex1913

          Indeed. Well said Kim. I too am for a strong defense. Our military should be able to counter attack with overwhelming force and fight to win any war that we declare. That being said, why do we have 130 military bases throughout the world and yet, at the same time, our understaffed boarder patrol can’t stop Mexican gangs from controlling the vast majority of illegals and illegal drugs coming into this country. Many terrorists of the religion that can not be named are also entering our country illegally from the pourous borders to the south and to the north. Lets move a few thousand troops onto the boarder for a couple years and put an end to this insanity. And lets let the rest of the world pay for their own defense forces.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim

            Declared war? What’s that? Do we know what that is anymore? No, we are “peacekeeping” all over the world everywhere but along Mexican and Canadian borders.

        • xjesterx

          There is no military industrial complex. Compared to medicare and social security, it’s a small part of the budget. Eisenhower also had a 91% tax rate, he really wasn’t that conservative.

      • xjesterx

        I agree totally with you. Bush is an honorable man. I think he believes in his causes, and he believed in making sure we didn’t get attacked then. BUT…he didn’t defend conservatives who were getting kicked in the face during his term. Wanting to protect “the office” of the presidency. It was well intentioned, but misguided. You can be an honorable president, and still protect your party and conservatives. I felt really let down that he didn’t stand up for us while Dems came out and said “the war is lost” and all that crap.

        It wasn’t just the presidency he represented, but all of us who voted for him!

    • ryanomaniac

      I would say that No Child Left Behind was equally bad as Obama care. We are talking about government having more control than ever over kids education which the government uses to program our children into being liberal and humanists. The children are the future of this country.

  • FreeManWalking

    IT was BUSHES FAULT… and I made a mistake backing him.

    • c4pfan

      Compared to what could have been in office, it’s still a hard call.:/

  • Major914

    I don’t see any problem with his answer. It was unhesitatingly truthful–which is a great big plus, all the way around. The justification of the testing regime concept, in addition to the need to cooperate with the party in order to get the party’s support for his desired legislation, mitigating his reservations was reasonable.

    Also, his portrayal that his having made the recognized and regretted mistake once, serves as a ‘prophylactic’ of sorts against his ever doing it again in the future is a strong point.

    • klaffner

      Well he wasn’t unhesitatingly truthful. He was hesitant and thrown off. He cracked. Like it or not the only candidate that has kept his cool (relatively) when in the lead is Romney. The rest are like Icarus (wax wings that got too close to the sun).

      • http://www.davemacleod.net/ dmacleo

        thats from practice. after running multiple times and losing you get good at it.

  • c4pfan

    Newt is no different than any of them and it ticks me off that his supporters won’t ADMIT it. He hasn’t done anything in dacades, but kiss up to Pelosi, do a debate with John Kerry that changed nothing, worked with nutjob Sharpton and fought for DeeDee in NYC!

    He was a hero to me in the 90s and was a total dissapointment during the Impeachment. It was just one of many lessons for me with supporting the GOP. I don’t trust any of them. They aren’t my heroes. Right now, I want a brokered convention to make this party face facts.

    • Gtrjag

      I get you. There are others such as Alan West or Marco Rubio I would rather see as our nominee. The problem is that the establishment will be pulling the strings at a brokered convention not the conservatives. I think we will be much better off if Santorum gets the nomination.

      By the way I don’t like Gingrich either.

      • c4pfan

        I appreciate that Santorum did it with just plain hard work. Newt and Romney just use money.

  • http://twitter.com/PoeAllen Allen Poe

    This is for Mark, re 2/22.1. Your attack on the NJ gov, is close to media attacks on mormonism. Please do not go there. 2. Your assumtion RS’s do not know oil, is off. So, FYI, oil production in the USA, has increased during the Ob term. The problem, is the oil is produced by foreign companies, leasing, and the oil is shipped away from the USA, with no revenue to the USA, except to POTUS. POTUS has also, entered into pacts, with foreign oil companies, to futher increase oil dependence on foreign oil. He has also passed legislation to increase the cost of coal, and natural gas. And know this, the USA oil companies are not your friends. They will use any method, to make money, including selling out our country. They have before. The only method that has worked, in the past, is banning foreign control of our oil. Then, watch the oil companies like hawks. I humbly suggest you confer with Rick Perry, on how to deal with, and expose these scams, that occur daily. By the way, oil spills are easy to contain, crude oil burns ferously. A simple flare dropped on a spill, burns all the oil. The oil company will do anything to prevent that, since it is money lost.

    • ryanomaniac

      Asking Palin would better than Perry. She didn’t just talk about it as Perry does. Perry isn’t all that he seems to be.

  • victorykd

    I agree with you.

  • 3seven77

    “In this case, you know, I thought testing and finding out how bad the problem was wasn’t a bad idea. What was a bad idea was all the money that was put out there and that, in fact, was a huge problem.”

    So is Santorum claiming he didn’t know that “all that money” would be put out there? What exactly did he expect? Did he not read the bill?

    Also, the “homeschooling” thing may come back to bite him. Isn’t that what all the fuss was about when his residency was questioned? That Santorum was getting money for his kids’ educations from Pennsylvania all the while he was living in Virginia?

    This was a weak answer and may have more repercussions than he knows.

  • PFFV

    He fessed up and said he made a mistake and I respect him for being a man. I think this gives me more confidence in Rick myself. He explained his position on government and public education rather well there and I completely agree.

  • http://www.facebook.com/salvatore.anello Salvatore Anello

    Not a good answer at all. I do think it was an honest one, though. I also believe he genuinely regrets the vote. Perhaps he has learned from this mistake over the last decade and will work to correct it as POTUS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Randall-Pickard/100003011397298 Randall Pickard

    Santorum approaches the debates as if there really are issues to discuss, positions to defend, and, yes, admissions to be made. That’s how real debate works. As an attorney, I would be foolish to stand before a judge or jury and try – as Romney continues to do – to defend an implausible position. Santorum’s answer on this question was self-depracating because it should be. He went against his core belief that education should be customized and not mass produced by the federal government – which he pronounced clearly at the end of his statement on the education issue – and voted with the President of his party. So, he confessed his error and gave his audience a reason to be believe him when he said that he would never make that mistake again.

    I think it is refreshing for a politician to admit a mistake of having done something against a core belief, explain what that core belief is, and then commit to never doing that again. Santorum’s statement last night is far more honest, and to me more convincing, than what I have heard from Romney and Gingrich concerning mistakes they have made as politicians. As I said, Romney is the stubborn politician who will not acknowledge a mistake and who is willing to take his party and his country down because he is too egotistical for self-examination and contrition.

    Newt is the politician who believes that “there’s no affair that can’t be left behind with ease.” As one political example, Newt has offered no good explanation in these series of debates for why he was for a government mandate on health insurance and now is against it, other than to say -after 20 years of supporting one – that he simply changed his mind. That is incredulous. Sure, it’s the easy way out of the bad affair of big government solutions to people’s problems, and it is nice and clean in the setting of these debates, but it is entirely unsatisfactory. A debate, after all, presumes conflicting positions. When those conflicting positions are within the candidate’s own record, the candidate should do more than just say, “I changed my mind.” He should tell us why he changed, so we can evaluate whether he should be believed.

    This is what Santorum did. He had a core belief that the federal government should be removed from public education, he went against that core belief for two reasons, he wanted to support his party’s President and he bought into the notion that a broken public education system could be fixed by federally imposed standards. He went against a core belief, and it was a mistake. He admits his mistake, repents by reaffirming his core belief and promises to never make that mstake again.

    I believe Santorum because what he just told me was consistent with my own personal experience of having violated a core belief, confessed the error, reprented from the error back to the path of my core belief. I also admire him, because he didn’t do the politically expedient thing last night. He didn’t offer a cute sound bite. Newt is the king of that and if that is all it takes to win debates, then they are really a waste of time.

    • wodiej

      Why do you allow Santorum repentance but not Gingrich? You think Gingrich won the debate w a cute sound bite? That’s just not being honest.

    • ryanomaniac

      I agree with you to an extent. It was honorable to admit to the mistake but why can he be forgiven of past mistakes but not the other guys? Maybe Santorm was being politcally expedient himself. It would be one thing if he had gotten ahead of this but I believe he only would have addressed this when pressed on it. No child left behind was a HUGE mistake. All these guys have serious flaws and their sins should be treated the same.

  • wodiej

    I am not a fan of debates even though I support Gingrich and he almost always does well. If they would have serious questions about today’s problems so the candidates could each give their solutions, that would be great. But it always goes into what so and so did 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Alot of times it doesn’t even have anything to do with them being a public servant. Well he said this about you, how would you like to respond? It’s Junior High. I think the media just wants them to tear each other down to help Obama look better. Are people that lazy they can’t even do a little research, attend some events of all of the candidates and make an informed decision? It seems sitting at home in front of the TV is the easy way out.

    No candidate is going to be 100% at every debate. They’ve all made mistakes-people do that you know. One piece of negative advertising, one unpopular decision, one muddled answer, and their poll numbers drop.

    What it all boils down to for me is:

    who is the fighter and scrapper who will call Obama out in a general election about all of his failed policies during his term?

    who knows Congress, has led there and has proven positive results that effected the entire country?

    who is offering up an analysis of the problems the country faces and detailed ideas and solutions to fix them and in an expedient manner?

    That is why I am supporting Gingrich.

  • Been_There_BT

    No problem. Rush will probably take three hours and tell us everything Rick meant to say, maybe he’ll even include a few Reagan clips. Personally, I can’t wait to hear Rush spin this debate for Santorum.

  • ryanomaniac

    Admitting to your faults is a good thing but I guarentee you he would never have done so if not asked. So can’t give him too much credit.

  • http://www.gloog.us FWH

    C’mon guys, let’s get serious; Ron Paul – Secretary of Treasury (FED dissolved), Mitt Romney – Dept. of Commerce (Dept. of Energy dissolved), Rick Santorum – Dept of Defense (State Department falls under Defense Department), Alan West for VP and of course Newt Gingrich for President. Problems solved & America becomes even greater than ever…
    How Refreshing Would It Be… http://houraney.com/2012/02/how-refreshing-would-it-be/

  • Juan999

    I’ve been tired of these debates for some time. We should all know who/what these guys are and where they stand on the issues by now, and any of them should be able to beat the idiot in the WH. The major issues are the very sick economy and the Fool in the WH.
    All conservatives should vote for either Santorum or Newt depending on which one is leading in the voter’s state: in PA vote for Santorum, in Georgia vote for Newt. As long as they both stay in the race, this is the only good strategy for conservatives to use to combat the RINOS/Mitt.

  • 911Infidel

    Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one’s POV, the guy is honest to a fault. Personally, I could care less. He has enough good points to sway my vote away from Romney and Newt. Reagan wasn’t perfect either. But he had a certain je ne sais quois that drew people to him. For Santorum, its his functioning moral compass. Its virtue. So, I’m not moving away from my support of him at all. I don’t expect him to win every debate. His lead nationally is still holding strong. He’ll have to do alot worse to lose my support.

  • JayGatsby88

    Romney came out swinging in this one, to me he gained the most from this debate. I guess you could say Romney knocked the santorum out of Santorum, ha. Man, this has been quite an interesting primary, the roller coaster ride continues.

  • JoeMontana16

    Santorum isnt a conservative. He is a compassionate conservative. No Child Left Behind is big government. A Unionguy is big government. Spending is big government. The Guy has never on any occasion run a single thing. I would never hire anyone to run anything without them having leadership credentials. What’s funny is that Romney is blasted for his record but Santorum gets the pass?

  • FloydAlsbach

    Heck, at the time ( Jan. 2001) I thought it was a good idea to force schools to a certain clear standard. Problem is it became another wasteful Federal Dictate which didn’t accomplish much. The world has changed a great deal since that time.

  • sara holy land

    I ‘m a Citizens of Israel, my leader is Netanyahu.
    My impression from Senator santorium began when he Appeareds at Beck.
    Since then, only reinforced the impression that he is indeed an honest, reliable and have high morals.
    He knows how to work in a team and is a wise man (I checked the academic accomplishments .
    In short = it has all the qualities to be a leader.

    Good luck to you !
    Your success is our success.

  • denbren52

    It takes courage to admit to a mistake. Most politicians will never do it. Rick Santorum continues to earn my respect more each day for his courage as well as his ability to answer a question from his heart rather than from a cheat sheet or a teleprompter.

    • B-Funk

      I agree. When making public a mistake, complete debate aptitude at those moments is not something I expect. On the flip side, I hope he doesn’t do that in debate with Obamao. This election, as Rush keeps saying, is about Obamao, not a single silly vote by our nominee.

  • NHConservative0221

    Anyone who crosses Santorum off due to his answer on NCLB is part of the problem. EVERY politician makes mistaks. Santorum was being honest unlike these other clowns who just spin and give out talking points.

    How come Mittens hasn’t done the same thing with Romneycare instead of defending it (which is much much worse than NCLB)??

    Santorum is a decent, honest man, and there are very few in politics. We need people to wake up and appreciate this instead of being dishonest hypocrites.

  • anneinarkansas

    An unwise statement to the American people today!
    The “team” is tarnished.

  • Amy

    I think it was just the way things were done during the Bush years. Fiscally, there were very few that voted their principles. Big spending was the norm even on the Republican side of the aisle.

    We are at a point, however, where everyone (well those with a logical thought process anyway) realize that big spending and federal oversight is well out of hand and we have to go back to the way the founders envisioned or we will perish as country.

  • http://www.davemacleod.net/ dmacleo

    he admits going against his belief, he screwed up and owned up to it.
    all in all I think its better than trying to defend it.

  • mder4thegov

    Well, I saw Ron Paul officially “sell out”, with his despicable lovefest with Romney. (He literally sat on his hands–instead of challenging the guy who laid the foundation for Obamacare.)
    I wonder how much it cost Rove and the other corrupt, establishment RINO’s–to get ole Ronnie to ditch his “principles”, and join the unelectable Mitt?
    All you Paul supporters should be real proud.

  • Josh

    Ouch. I think he should have skipped the admission that it was against principle and just said that it was a mistake.

  • RosiesSeeingRed

    I’ve watched all 20 debates. Has Romney EVER said he regrets something he might’ve said or supported in the past? I think this is why people cannot warm up to the guy. It’s like he’s inhuman. No one goes through life without saying or doing something they regret, especially in politics, unless you’re Romney. It’s just not real.

    I’d rather a Newt or Rick who can own up to mistakes they’ve made after seeing the outcome of those mistakes. Would it have been better for Rick to stick to his guns like Romney is doing with RomneyCare, despite the fact that it’s been a failure in MA in terms of cost and implementation?

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.masiwchuk David Scott Masiwchuk

    This is why I feel Rick isnt leader material….

  • jostvandyke

    here comes NEWT !!!!

  • welovetruth

    after a whole day of hearing how he did i finally got a chance to hear it…
    I think its not a good answer……..its a great one!!!!

  • kong1967

    I hated the answer. Being a team player is what got us in this mess. Instead of making the right decisions they vote on bills they know are bad entirely for political purposes or to make themselves look good in order to garner votes. This put to the forefront that Santorum plays politics as usual.

    I haven’t dropped my support for him….yet. I’m very close to not even showing up to vote in November because all the candidates stink. None of them will be a good President IMO. Yeah, I know, Obama will be much worse.